outrager 6 #26 August 19, 2004 QuoteGlad to see you support OBL against the US Wrong conclusion. The point was to highlight a misuse of terminology by biased parties. Other easy examples: US called a "democracy" while being ruled by a minority-elected leader (a republic, certainly) or the same group of people migrating from Afganistan to Chechnya to Iraq being called sequentially "Freedom Fighters" then "Terrorists" then "Freedom Fighters" then "Terrorists". I equally dislike OBL and US actions, it's really hard to choose a lesser of two great evil. bsbd! Yuri. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #27 August 19, 2004 There you have it folks. He thinks the USA is on the same level as Al Qaeda.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #28 August 19, 2004 QuoteTry reading history...That is look at WWII in the HISTORY books. That was 50+ years ago..Not today. Wars were fought differently at different times in history. I'd definitely agree that technology has changed, but the principles of Sun Tzu are just as applicable now as they were when written. And reading Bills posts - I gather he's referring to the principles of war, not the tools. Jump -------------Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #29 August 19, 2004 QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Glad to see you support OBL against the US -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wrong conclusion Really what about this: ***I equally dislike OBL and US actions, it's really hard to choose a lesser of two great evil. Quote Oh I see you hate us both the same. Friends like you I don't need"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #30 August 19, 2004 QuoteI'd definitely agree that technology has changed, but the principles of Sun Tzu are just as applicable now as they were when written. And reading Bills posts - I gather he's referring to the principles of war, not the tools. You have to take into consideration what tols you have at the time. Tactics have to change with the advance of weapons. We don't do trench warfare anymore. Building a castle was ended by gunpowder. The guy with the sword beat the guy with the stick. The days of needing to carpet bomb a city or nuke one are gone."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites outrager 6 #31 August 19, 2004 QuoteThere you have it folks. He thinks the USA is on the same level as Al Qaeda. Not really. When it comes to killings of innocent civilians, USA kills an order of magnitude more. However it does kill them with good intentions. Reminds me of South Park: "We gotta kill them or else they will die!" bsbd! Yuri. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #32 August 19, 2004 Quote 50 YEARS AGO vs TODAY. 5, 50, 500 it's irrelevant, you do what you have to to win a war based on the current threat level... If it were necessary for the survival of the US we would gladly adopt the methods of 50 years ago... the direction that modern conflicts have progressed have allowed us to keep our ‘morality’ as that level of brutality has not become necessary for ‘safe’ progress in the current conflicts, lets hope that is never does, but don’t pretend we are any better now than we were then, we just aren’t under the same level of military stress…. yet....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,114 #33 August 19, 2004 >The days of needing to carpet bomb a city or nuke one are gone. They will be gone until we need to do it. Then people like you will justify the action, and will explain how it just might have saved X lives to drop a neutron bomb on Shanghai. We have always done, and will continue to do, anything it takes to win a real war. (Not an invasion of a helpless country, mind you, but a real war, one that threatens us for real.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #34 August 19, 2004 Quote5, 50, 500 it's irrelevant, you do what you have to to win a war based on the current threat level... If it were necessary for the survival of the US we would gladly adopt the methods of 50 years ago... the direction that modern conflicts have progressed have allowed us to keep our ‘morality’ as that level of brutality has not become necessary for ‘safe’ progress in the current conflicts, lets hope that is never does, but don’t pretend we are any better now than we were then, we just aren’t under the same level of military stress…. yet.... I don't agree with that...I think the advances in weapons systems do TONS to make it so you don't have to carpet bomb, or nuke a city. Other wise you are saying that there will come a time when we will have to stand in rows like the English did in the Revolutionary war. Different attitudes and advanced weapons made things like Knights in Armor fade away. I think the same thing happens in modern warfare. I can't see the need to carpet bomb a city in todays conflicts. And I can't see the need coming up...I could be wrong, but blasting Iraq with nukes is not going to speed things up over there."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #35 August 19, 2004 Quote>The days of needing to carpet bomb a city or nuke one are gone. They will be gone until we need to do it. Then people like you will justify the action, and will explain how it just might have saved X lives to drop a neutron bomb on Shanghai If its needed yes. But it will be over the complaints of people like you that would rather us die than fight back."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #36 August 19, 2004 no methods change. technology advances, but the strategic and tactical concepts remain the same... the rows of soldiers was always a bad idea, it just took a better tactician to figure out how to beat it. currently our way of life is not under significant threat. It may be hard to grasp that fact with the spotlight and the wolf shadow in the closet but wait until there is a danger of dying while walking to the supermarket to pick up your ration of bread.... if/when that occurs we will gladly use whatever means necessary to insure the survival of our way of life.....even if that means the glass parking lot option... fortunately we are no where near that level of military/social stress....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,114 #37 August 19, 2004 >But it will be over the complaints of people like you that would rather >us die than fight back. Nope. In fact, I'm for a strong military so it can do what we intended it to do - protect the US against foreign invaders. That's its purpose, and if we're attacked, we should use it for the purpose it was created for. And if we have to use hydrogen bombs to destroy China to make the next war end a little sooner? People like you will explain what a good idea it was, how there was no other way out. And you'll be able to pull it off, too - the people who might disagree will all be dead. This has been going on for as long as I can remember. When I was in school we learned all about how the peace-loving settlers defended themselves against the vicious native americans, who were finally pushed back into their reservations after nearly decimating the early settlers. Of course, the opposite is true, but again, the victors write history. And that all actually works out, if your goal is to be the biggest, meanest bastard on the planet. We _can_ crush small countries now. We won't always be the biggest, baddest people out there, though - and by the time we're not, we better pray the next superpower has learned a little more restraint than we have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Botellines 0 #38 August 19, 2004 QuoteThere you have it folks. He thinks the USA is on the same level as Al Qaeda. Well, i think it is not the same level. As ron have stated the only diference beetwen Arab terrorists and U.S Heroes is the that terrorist aim for civilians and U.S Heroes aim for terrorist, although in the end both kill civilians... So back to the level issue, Good thing for U.S Heroes is that they don´t try to kill innocent civilians, but the bad thing is that they are much better at killing inoccent people than terrorist. So you tell us, what level the current U.S administration and war supporterrs are in regarding to terrorist? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #39 August 20, 2004 "Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori." Takes me back Bill, the works of Owen, Sassoon, Kipling etc were required reading in my English literature classes. Their words may be dated, but the message is bang up to date.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #40 August 20, 2004 Quoteno methods change. technology advances, but the strategic and tactical concepts remain the same... the rows of soldiers was always a bad idea, it just took a better tactician to figure out how to beat it. The rows were a bad idea, but it was the tactics of the day...Just like carpet bombing was."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #41 August 20, 2004 QuoteNope. In fact, I'm for a strong military so it can do what we intended it to do - protect the US against foreign invaders. That's its purpose, and if we're attacked, we should use it for the purpose it was created for. More than just foreign invaders...but also foreign attacks, and to protect our interests all over the world. QuoteWhen I was in school we learned all about how the peace-loving settlers defended themselves against the vicious native americans, who were finally pushed back into their reservations after nearly decimating the early settlers. Of course, the opposite is true, but again, the victors write history. Its never that simple Bill as one side bad, the other good. I can find MANY cases where settlers were attacked while they were minding their own business. Just as you can find cases of indians being attacked. QuoteAnd that all actually works out, if your goal is to be the biggest, meanest bastard on the planet. I don't think thats the goal...But it has happened. QuoteWe _can_ crush small countries now. So could the Romans. QuoteWe won't always be the biggest, baddest people out there, though - and by the time we're not, we better pray the next superpower has learned a little more restraint than we have. They won't...It's the nature of being a superpower."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Ron 10 #30 August 19, 2004 QuoteI'd definitely agree that technology has changed, but the principles of Sun Tzu are just as applicable now as they were when written. And reading Bills posts - I gather he's referring to the principles of war, not the tools. You have to take into consideration what tols you have at the time. Tactics have to change with the advance of weapons. We don't do trench warfare anymore. Building a castle was ended by gunpowder. The guy with the sword beat the guy with the stick. The days of needing to carpet bomb a city or nuke one are gone."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
outrager 6 #31 August 19, 2004 QuoteThere you have it folks. He thinks the USA is on the same level as Al Qaeda. Not really. When it comes to killings of innocent civilians, USA kills an order of magnitude more. However it does kill them with good intentions. Reminds me of South Park: "We gotta kill them or else they will die!" bsbd! Yuri. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #32 August 19, 2004 Quote 50 YEARS AGO vs TODAY. 5, 50, 500 it's irrelevant, you do what you have to to win a war based on the current threat level... If it were necessary for the survival of the US we would gladly adopt the methods of 50 years ago... the direction that modern conflicts have progressed have allowed us to keep our ‘morality’ as that level of brutality has not become necessary for ‘safe’ progress in the current conflicts, lets hope that is never does, but don’t pretend we are any better now than we were then, we just aren’t under the same level of military stress…. yet....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #33 August 19, 2004 >The days of needing to carpet bomb a city or nuke one are gone. They will be gone until we need to do it. Then people like you will justify the action, and will explain how it just might have saved X lives to drop a neutron bomb on Shanghai. We have always done, and will continue to do, anything it takes to win a real war. (Not an invasion of a helpless country, mind you, but a real war, one that threatens us for real.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #34 August 19, 2004 Quote5, 50, 500 it's irrelevant, you do what you have to to win a war based on the current threat level... If it were necessary for the survival of the US we would gladly adopt the methods of 50 years ago... the direction that modern conflicts have progressed have allowed us to keep our ‘morality’ as that level of brutality has not become necessary for ‘safe’ progress in the current conflicts, lets hope that is never does, but don’t pretend we are any better now than we were then, we just aren’t under the same level of military stress…. yet.... I don't agree with that...I think the advances in weapons systems do TONS to make it so you don't have to carpet bomb, or nuke a city. Other wise you are saying that there will come a time when we will have to stand in rows like the English did in the Revolutionary war. Different attitudes and advanced weapons made things like Knights in Armor fade away. I think the same thing happens in modern warfare. I can't see the need to carpet bomb a city in todays conflicts. And I can't see the need coming up...I could be wrong, but blasting Iraq with nukes is not going to speed things up over there."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #35 August 19, 2004 Quote>The days of needing to carpet bomb a city or nuke one are gone. They will be gone until we need to do it. Then people like you will justify the action, and will explain how it just might have saved X lives to drop a neutron bomb on Shanghai If its needed yes. But it will be over the complaints of people like you that would rather us die than fight back."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #36 August 19, 2004 no methods change. technology advances, but the strategic and tactical concepts remain the same... the rows of soldiers was always a bad idea, it just took a better tactician to figure out how to beat it. currently our way of life is not under significant threat. It may be hard to grasp that fact with the spotlight and the wolf shadow in the closet but wait until there is a danger of dying while walking to the supermarket to pick up your ration of bread.... if/when that occurs we will gladly use whatever means necessary to insure the survival of our way of life.....even if that means the glass parking lot option... fortunately we are no where near that level of military/social stress....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #37 August 19, 2004 >But it will be over the complaints of people like you that would rather >us die than fight back. Nope. In fact, I'm for a strong military so it can do what we intended it to do - protect the US against foreign invaders. That's its purpose, and if we're attacked, we should use it for the purpose it was created for. And if we have to use hydrogen bombs to destroy China to make the next war end a little sooner? People like you will explain what a good idea it was, how there was no other way out. And you'll be able to pull it off, too - the people who might disagree will all be dead. This has been going on for as long as I can remember. When I was in school we learned all about how the peace-loving settlers defended themselves against the vicious native americans, who were finally pushed back into their reservations after nearly decimating the early settlers. Of course, the opposite is true, but again, the victors write history. And that all actually works out, if your goal is to be the biggest, meanest bastard on the planet. We _can_ crush small countries now. We won't always be the biggest, baddest people out there, though - and by the time we're not, we better pray the next superpower has learned a little more restraint than we have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #38 August 19, 2004 QuoteThere you have it folks. He thinks the USA is on the same level as Al Qaeda. Well, i think it is not the same level. As ron have stated the only diference beetwen Arab terrorists and U.S Heroes is the that terrorist aim for civilians and U.S Heroes aim for terrorist, although in the end both kill civilians... So back to the level issue, Good thing for U.S Heroes is that they don´t try to kill innocent civilians, but the bad thing is that they are much better at killing inoccent people than terrorist. So you tell us, what level the current U.S administration and war supporterrs are in regarding to terrorist? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #39 August 20, 2004 "Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori." Takes me back Bill, the works of Owen, Sassoon, Kipling etc were required reading in my English literature classes. Their words may be dated, but the message is bang up to date.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #40 August 20, 2004 Quoteno methods change. technology advances, but the strategic and tactical concepts remain the same... the rows of soldiers was always a bad idea, it just took a better tactician to figure out how to beat it. The rows were a bad idea, but it was the tactics of the day...Just like carpet bombing was."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #41 August 20, 2004 QuoteNope. In fact, I'm for a strong military so it can do what we intended it to do - protect the US against foreign invaders. That's its purpose, and if we're attacked, we should use it for the purpose it was created for. More than just foreign invaders...but also foreign attacks, and to protect our interests all over the world. QuoteWhen I was in school we learned all about how the peace-loving settlers defended themselves against the vicious native americans, who were finally pushed back into their reservations after nearly decimating the early settlers. Of course, the opposite is true, but again, the victors write history. Its never that simple Bill as one side bad, the other good. I can find MANY cases where settlers were attacked while they were minding their own business. Just as you can find cases of indians being attacked. QuoteAnd that all actually works out, if your goal is to be the biggest, meanest bastard on the planet. I don't think thats the goal...But it has happened. QuoteWe _can_ crush small countries now. So could the Romans. QuoteWe won't always be the biggest, baddest people out there, though - and by the time we're not, we better pray the next superpower has learned a little more restraint than we have. They won't...It's the nature of being a superpower."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
